How did the Copernican revolution contribute to the emergence of a scientific
world-view?

By Roy Hornsby

In medieval Europe it was generally accepted that the Earth lay at the centre
of a finite universe and that the sun, planets and stars orbited around it.
The framework in which this astronomy was set was established by Aristotle
(384 - 322 BC) in the fourth century BC while in the second century AD Ptolemy
(c. 100 - 170 AD) devised a detailed yet different geocentric astronomical
system (Chalmers, 1976).

During the early part of the sixteenth century, Nicolaus Copernicus (1473
- 1543) developed the first heliocentric theory of the universe (Blackburn,
1994) which he presented in 'De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium Libri Sex'
(Six Books on the Revolution of the Celestial Orbs). The Copernican astronomy
involved a moving Earth, which challenged the Aristotelian and Ptolemaic systems
but by the time the Copernican view had been substantiated, the Aristotelian
world-view had been replaced by the Newtonian theories of inertia, gravitation
and motion (Chalmers, 1976).

The purpose of this paper is to examine how the theories of Copernicus contributed
to the emergence of a scientific world-view, a view that encompassed a paradigmatic
shift in world-view orientation from the medieval explanations of nature.
Before the impact of the work of Copernicus can be fully appreciated however,
it is necessary to have an understanding of the historical and social conditions
that prevailed at that time.

The medieval schema of the universe was geocentric. That is, the Earth remained
stationary at the centre of the universe while the sun, the planets and all
of the stars revolved around it. However, geocentricism had been under attack.
Around 1375 The Occamists, particularly in Paris had been busy with a critical
philosophy and forward-looking scientific investigations. Despite retaining
some of the teleological elements of Aristotelian physics, Buridan (c. 1295
- 1358) had developed a concept of inertia and of gravity as uniformly accelerated
motion. Nicholas of Oresme invented the idea of analytic geometry, discovered
the formula for uniformly accelerated motion and argued for the rotation of
the Earth (Blake, Ducasse & Madden, 1960).

Furthermore, Nicholas of Cusa (1401 - 1464) was associated with the doctrine
of the 'concordance of contraries', an attack on the Aristotelian law of non-contradiction
(Blackburn, 1994) and had been willing to entertain the idea that the Earth
might be in motion. In fact it has been suggested that Copernicus owed to
Cusa his view that a sphere set in empty space would begin to turn without
needing anything to move it (Butterfield, 1957). Despite these pockets of
revolutionary thinking, medieval philosophy remained locked in pantheistic
mysticism (Norris-Clark, 1994). Philosophy of the time was subordinate to
Christian theology and limited by subservience to dogma. The reverence and
respect displayed to authorities of philosophy and theology characterised
this thought as Scholasticism. Scholastics sought not to learn new facts,
but to integrate the knowledge already acquired separately by Greek reasoning
and Christian revelation. Furthermore, they believed in harmony between faith
and reason (Copleston, 1992). Because the scholastics believed that revelation
was the direct teaching of God, it possessed for them a higher degree of truth
and certitude than did natural reason. Throughout the scholastic period, philosophy
was called the servant of theology, not only because the truth of philosophy
was subordinated to that of theology, but also because the theologian used
philosophy to understand and explain the revelation. This concern is one of
the most characteristic differences between Scholasticism and modern thought
since the Renaissance (Norris-Clark, 2001).

Scholastics applied the requirements for scientific demonstration as first
specified in Aristotle's 'Organon' much more rigorously than previous philosophers
had done. These requirements were so strict that Aristotle himself was rarely
able to apply them fully beyond the realms of mathematics. It was this trend
that finally led to the loss of confidence in natural human reason and philosophy
that is characteristic of the early Renaissance and of the first Protestant
religious reformers, such as Martin Luther (Norris-Clark, 2001).

The Christian church, still reeling from the effects of both the schism of
Eastern and Western churches (1054) and of the rival Popes (1378 - 1417) found
itself facing an intensified call for reform that eventually erupted in the
Protestant Reformation (O'Malley, 2001). Humanism, the revival of classical
learning and speculative inquiry, displaced Scholasticism in Italy during
the early Renaissance of the 15th Century and quickly spread to become the
principle philosophy of Western Europe. This deprived church leaders of the
monopoly on learning that they had previously held (Encarta, 2001).

Martin Luther (1483 - 1546) initiated the Protestant revolution in Germany
in 1517 when he published his 95 theses challenging the theory and practice
of indulgences. The reform became very popular with the people and Germany
became sharply divided along religious and economic lines. The reformation
spread throughout Europe and led to the Peasants War (1524 - 1526). Not until
1534 when Paul III became pope did the church meet the challenge of the Protestants.
Paul III, like many of his successors, did not hesitate to use both diplomatic
and military measures against the Protestants. The Counter Reformation movement
sought to revitalise the Roman Catholic Church. Subsequently, the Index of
Forbidden Books and a new Inquisition were instituted about 1542 (O'Malley,
2001).

Astronomers also were groping for reform at the time of the birth of Copernicus.
By the time that Copernicus had finished his preliminary training in astronomy,
his teachers had begun to realise that although an intensive study of Ptolemy's
'Almagest' was a necessary pre-requisite to further study, to know only Ptolemy
was not going to be sufficient to rejuvenate astronomy (Boas, 1962). Indeed,
some astronomers held that the Ptolemaic system was so cumbersome and inaccurate
that it could not be true of nature. Copernicus himself eventually wrote in
the preface to 'De Revolutionibus' that the astronomical tradition he had
inherited had created only a monster (Kuhn, 1962). Further to this Kuhn (1962,
p. 69) stated,

"By the early sixteenth century an increasing number of Europe's best
astronomers were recognising that the astronomical paradigm was failing
in application to its own traditional problems. That recognition was prerequisite
to Copernicus' rejection of the Ptolemaic paradigm and his search for a
new one."

Copernicus however, did not seem to have a revolutionary attitude and upon
rejection of the Ptolemaic system he examined again the earlier Greek astronomy.
The humanist principle that all knowledge must lie with the ancients still
appeared viable. Copernicus attempted nothing that others had not tried before
because many astronomers had used the ancients to refute Ptolemy, however
Copernicus alone chose the Pythagorean system which was to have profound revolutionary
implications (Boas, 1962).

The historical evidence presented thus far suggests that Western Europe was
in a state of several crises when Copernicus entered into the controversy
and was ripe for a revolution of one type or another. However, Copernicus
kept his work in abeyance for over thirty years and without the encouragement
of George Rheticus (1514 - 1576) it is debatable whether his works would have
been published at all, let alone before his death. At this point it is appropriate
to note that Copernicus was a canon of the Roman Catholic Church and had been
called upon by Pope Leo X to reform the calendar. The church was anxious that
religious festivals be accorded their proper places in time. George Rheticus
was a Protestant who was responsible for the publication of Copernicus's 'Narratio
Primer' in 1540 though he handed over his position in the publication of 'De
Revolutionibus' to a Lutheran pastor named Andreas Osiander (Boas, 1962).
It is ironic that the Catholic Church was involved in the instigation of a
reform that would eventually lead to erosion of their power over humanity.
It is doubly so that it was done with the first hand assistance of two Protestants.

Traditionally, Copernicus saw his finished work only on his deathbed in 1543
and much controversy has raged over his disinclination to publish in the years
between 1512 and 1539. One possible reason is that he may have been afraid
of official censure. This fear was not unfounded, as publication of 'De Revolutionibus'
was antecedent to much comment and criticism. Central to the Copernican system
lay the point which required the most reasoned argument and one which caused
Copernicus to fear ridicule from his peers; the attribution of motion to the
Earth. To assume in the sixteenth century that the Earth moved required a
straining of well-assured fact that could amount to the absurdity provoked
by the contrary argument today. Although his book was well received by the
church and used to further calendar reform little attention was given at first
to its heart, the new theory. (Boas, 1962).

As mentioned previously in this paper it is inappropriate to suggest that
the publication of Copernicus's great work shook any foundation of European
thought immediately. A generation after his death the period of crucial transition
commenced and the controversy over the correctness of the Ptolemaic or the
Copernican tenet became intense. Almost one hundred and fifty years would
pass before a theory of the universe that would permit explanation of the
movement of the Earth and other planets was presented. This explanation, in
turn, provided a framework for further scientific development. The influence
of Copernicus was indeed important but it resulted not so much from his system
of the skies but more from the stimulus that he gave to men who in reality
were producing something very different (Butterfield, 1957).

Kuhn (1962, p. 116) discusses paradigm-induced changes in scientific perceptions
during the first half century after Copernicus's new paradigm was proposed.
He states:

"The very ease and rapidity with which astronomers saw new things
when looking at old objects with old instruments may make us wish to say
that, after Copernicus, astronomers lived in a different world. In any case,
their research responded as though that were the case." (Kuhn 1962,
p. 117).

In Kuhn's 'The Copernican Revolution' Copernicus is presented as a highly
proficient mathematical astronomer whose very narrow mindedness outside of
his chosen domain blinded him to the destructive consequences that his technical
reform of astronomy entailed for the entire traditional world-view (Cohen,
1994). Kuhn's point is important, for the heliocentric theories of Copernicus
replaced the geocentric view of the cosmos that further threatened the authority
of the church (Norris-Clark, 1994). No longer was humanity at the centre of
the universe, about which all else revolved, but rather humanity was but one
small part of a much larger system in constant movement. With the importance
of humanity being decentred, people began to question more than that which
faith held in high regard. This resulted in original and creative thought
beginning to develop outside of the revered institutions of education (Copleston,
1994), and what emerged were fresh original minds, aching to be freed from
the shackles of traditional thought. The geographical discoveries, the opening
up of fresh sources of wealth and the questioning of the church, heralded
a new era.

In spite of this, most Renaissance scholars felt confident in tracing human
history back in a continuous pedigree to Adam, the first human allowing man
to retain his divinely fixed place in time and space. Finally, owing to a
succession of geniuses, Copernican astronomy assimilated in the seventeenth
century. This assimilation resulted in the displacement of the Earth, and
man upon it. Rather than being central to the universe, the Earth and consequently
mankind became insignificant elements in an infinite universe (Porter, 1990).

Grant (1971) deliberates as to why the 14th century cosmological speculations
failed to bring about a Scientific Revolution in the way that Copernicus's
astronomical reform was able to do. According to Cohen (1994, p. 267) Grant
states,

"Saving the phenomena became the predominant attitude. The thing to
do was to think up clever imaginations of how things might be rather than
embark upon a relentless investigation of reality."

Grant further argues that the physical realists of the 13th century failed
to produce early modern science because of their lack of confidence of the
human mind to penetrate nature. Copernicus succeeded because his work made
possible for the first time

"a potent union of new ideas that would challenge the traditional
physics and cosmology .with the conviction, even if naive, that knowledge
of physical reality was fully attainable." (Cohen, 1994, p. 267).

Apart from a few eminent mathematicians like Rheticus and intellectual radicals
like Bruno, nobody was bold enough to champion the work of Copernicus. It
was the genius of Johannes Kepler (1571 - 1630) who seized upon it in the
late 1580's (Burtt, 1952). However, the person who contributed most significantly
to the defence of the Copernican system was Galileo Galilei (1564 - 1642).
He achieved this in two ways; first, he used the telescope to observe the
heavens and transformed pure Copernican theory to theory substantiated through
observational data. Second, he devised the beginnings of new mechanics and
laid some foundations for Newtonian mechanics that would replace Aristotle's.
In doing so, the mechanical arguments against Copernicus were diffused (Chalmers,
1976).

The theory that Giordano Bruno (1548 - 1600) developed from the Copernican
system was that the universe forms a system of countless worlds, each of which
moves around its own sun. This governs each world that leads its own proper
life, emerging from a chaotic condition to a clear and definite formation
and again yields to the destiny of dissolution. From the significance of the
Copernican theory the 'unlimitedness' of space and time gained a clearer form
and ultimately the proven hypothesis of the motion of the Earth about the
Sun could furnish a rational basis for the completely new view of man's position
in the universe. The anthropocentric idea which had ruled the Middle Ages
became incoherent and man, as well as the Earth, ceased to be regarded as
the centre of the universe and centre of the world (Windleband, 1958). Kuhn
(1957, p. 264) recognises this by stating:

"The conception of a planetary Earth was the first successful
break with a constitutive element of the ancient world view. Though intended
solely as an astronomical reform, it had destructive consequences which could
be resolved only within a new fabric of thought. Copernicus himself did not
supply that fabric; his own conception of the universe was closer to Aristotle's
than to Newton's. But the new problems and suggestions that derived from his
innovation are the most prominent landmarks in the development of the new
universe which that innovation had itself called forth."

It is not within the scope of this paper to fully examine the far reaching
implications upon science and indeed mankind that have resulted from the work
of Copernicus. Through the evidence presented thus far it is apparent that
the mathematical reform of astronomy initiated by him was a significant intellectual
event. Subsequently it set in motion a preparatory movement in astronomical
and physical thought which gradually expanded until it erupted in what is
now referred to as the Scientific Revolution (Cohen, 1994). His planetary
theories profoundly effected man's relation to God and the universe and further,
were catalytic to the transition from a medieval to a modern Western society.
The Copernican theory created tremendous controversies in religion, philosophy
and social theory which have set the tenor of the modern mind (Kuhn, 1957).

In conclusion, the work of Copernicus not only transformed mankind's conception
of the universe but it has been markedly influential in the evolution of science
and rational thought as we know it today.